Jo Nova has more from Frank Lansner on what older records, this time from weather balloons, tell us about recent adjustments to the temperature record. WUWT readers may recall Rewriting the decline where the graph from National Geographic below raises some questions about temperature graphs today.
Above: Matthews 1976, National Geographic, Temperatures 1880-1976
Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. Recall that the original “hide the decline” statement comes from the ClimateGate emails and refers to “hiding” the tree ring data that shows a decline in temperatures after 1960. It’s known as the “divergence problem” because tree rings diverge from the measured temperatures. But Frank shows that the peer reviewed data supports the original graphs and that measured temperature did decline from 1960 onwards, sharply. But in the GISS version of that time-period, temperatures from the cold 1970’s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer.
The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3C decline that was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later that was reduced so far it became a mild warming, against the detailed corroborating evidence from rabocore data.
Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.
You can see how similar the data from both methods is:
So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.
The decline in the original graph in National Geographic in 1976 is apparently backed up by highly accurate balloon data, and was based on peer reviewed data: Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975). These two sets overlap from 1958 to 1960, and correlate well, so stitching them together is reasonable thing to do and it doesn’t make much difference which year is chosen from the overlap period (indeed any other choice makes the decline slightly steeper).
What’s thought provoking is that the raobcore data above is for 30N-30S, covering all the tropics on both sides of the equator, and yet still shows the decline. That begs the question of whether the Southern Hemisphere data has been adjusted too. It would be good to see the raobcore sets further up towards the arctic. It would also be good to look at the Southern Hemisphere. Where are the data sets and peer reviewed papers on temperature from 1965 to 1980? I’d like to follow that up.
Three decades of adjustments
When did the “funny business” begin? By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs which were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and then 2007 further reduced the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost.
(Click to see a larger image).
Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960’s to 1970’s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 rising (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).
Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s
And in 1974, there was the fore-runner of the “It’s worse than we thought” message.
…
Frank has more information and details on his blog Hide the decline.
If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late. Lansner also remind us of the photos taken in the arctic by submarines that surfaced around the north pole.
18
03
2010
John Whitman (17:40:38) :
””’Wren (12:23:18) : Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”. ””’
Wren,
Nice question you pose. The ‘why’ question is intriging. I would extend your question to;
Given that Dr Hansen is quite intelligent and resourceful and that there were many scenarios/options/methodologies he could use to adjust the temp records to suit his goals on the AGW agenda, why did he choose the one he did?
Based on my observations, he chose the method and sequence (over years) of adjustments that would be the most difficult for people like M & M to audit.
I think he quickly learned from the difficulties of Mann & Jones with M & M. I think Hansen also had better & more resources than Jones or Mann.
I think he adapted to the threats he perceived, whereas Jones did not adapt. Mostly Jones just resisted.
John
——
And such vision! Hansen knew what to do a long time ago(1987). No wonder the meteorological association gave him an award.
bemused (16:32:44) :
1.The Budyko(1976) temperature data which appears to have been used in the National Geographic article was for the *northern hemisphere* only. The Hansen graphs you then compare them with are *global*. You are not comparing like with like.
If you wanted to do a fair comparison you could look at the GISS Northern Hemisphere data here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
Here you will see that (surprise, surprise) the 70s come out cooler than the 1955-65 period. No conspiracy.
2.The RAOB core data that you plotted showing the data from the late-50s onwards is for the *tropics only* -again you are not comparing like with like. I’m not quite sure what your point was with that.
3.You comparison, supposedly showing changes to the data after the fact is far from convincing. Obviously, new studies using different selections of station data and different analysis techniques will give different numbers. The position of your blue line is very sensitive to the short, sharp dip around 1965. You can pick points from the series which change both ways.
For example, in your 3 Hansen plots figure, look at the peak around 1940 and compare this with the red line.
Cooling between 1940 peak and 1955-1965:
1980 paper = -0.10C
1987 paper = -0.15C
2007 paper = -0.15C
Why don’t you accuse Hansen of introducing artificial cooling into the global temperature time series?
4.”If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, this rewrites the entire claim of unprecedented recent warming.”
Which data that you’ve shown has allowed you to conclude that 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990s? The “National Geographic” northern hemisphere data only go up to 1975. The RAOB data are for the tropics only and incidently match very closely to tropics data in the GISS data (linked in (1) above). The global GISS data show the 1990s to be considerably warmer than 1958.
5.As you suddenly have such huge faith in the observational records provided by satellites and RAOBCORE (“both accurate, reliable tools” apparently), I would like to point out that both of these (in your figure) independently confirm a global warming trend of approx 0.2K/decade (1979-2008).
======
Yeah, but …..
A bunch of burned-out old men who do nothing but massage ancient data. What a pathetic image. It requires a new word – paqaqaq. It’s paqaqaq.
Jimmy Carter turned off the Christmas Tree lights at the White House.
Re: papertiger (Mar 18 19:25),
In this paper they claim a cool bias because of global warming over Antarctica that they also claim never existed.
You’re not reading carefully, which makes it easy to find inconsistency. He’s talking about stratospheric cooling.
Bruce of Newcastle (15:06:08) :
Climate Kate (13:14:21) :
“Unfortunatelly at moment (2010) the UAH data show a much bigger temperature increase than the GISS data”
We’re in a very big el Nino, like the 1998 event. Similar spike in troposphere temperature proxy to 1998. I think we’re all waiting with interest to see what will happen after the el Nino dissipates.
=====
Maybe the same thing that happened after the last El Nino(1998). The the 2010-2009 decade will be warmer globally than the decade before it.
Steve Goddard (10:49:13) :
Most NCDC statewide temperature records show this decline. Here is one from Alabama.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
I guess if you wanted to show global warming in your data set you’d want to drop that station from it.
steven mosher (11:12:59) :
Maybe Hansen kept his old data set. Asking him might be an interesting experience.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Doing so could make you another person of whom he says their name must not be mentioned.
Wren (12:23:18) :
Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
I gotta hand it to you Wren, you’re really on top of this game. You don’t pass a chance up.
But you’ve got such a big problem. There are people looking past you.
Theo Goodwin (20:06:17) :
A bunch of burned-out old men who do nothing but massage ancient data. What a pathetic image. It requires a new word – paqaqaq. It’s paqaqaq.
====
I googled “paqaqaq,” and found nothing. I’ll bite. What’s it mean?
Any real climatologist only uses anomaly.
/sarcoff/
Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:16:34) :
Steve Goddard (10:49:13) :
Most NCDC statewide temperature records show this decline. Here is one from Alabama.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
I guess if you wanted to show global warming in your data set you’d want to drop that station from it.
——-
Yeah, I bet that would do it, given that the entire U.S. represents only about 1.5 % of the globe’s surface.
Ripper (14:54:53) : Most interesting. The cru91 for Red Bluff, CA, matches very well with the historic records from AMS. It also includes the data back to 1872, which I presume Jones lost. Too bad, 1875 bears a closer look. It also confirms zero warming for Red Bluff 1872-1980.
I’ll have to check other stations to see how much of the cru91 is for real.
Wren (20:16:03) :
Kinda sucks for you Wren that after taking out El Nino for 2009/2010 cooling is actually happening in the past decade.
But you’ll say that’s not a long enough time period to measure cooling. But it is if you’re looking at the last decade, which you are doing. Also, of course, if it was warming over the last decade that would be proof of global warming, I know, just like everything else is proof of global warming.
BTW, the earth has been cooling since the Medieval Warm Period. It was warmer on earth then than it is now.
El Ninos and La Ninas come and go. But the earth continues to cool.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:36:16) :
Wren (20:16:03) :
Kinda sucks for you Wren that after taking out El Nino for 2009/2010 cooling is actually happening in the past decade.
But you’ll say that’s not a long enough time period to measure cooling. But it is if you’re looking at the last decade, which you are doing. Also, of course, if it was warming over the last decade that would be proof of global warming, I know, just like everything else is proof of global warming.
BTW, the earth has been cooling since the Medieval Warm Period. It was warmer on earth then than it is now.
El Ninos and La Ninas come and go. But the earth continues to cool.
=====
You are right. After turning my monitor on its side, I can clearly see the decline.
NIck Stokes:
It just wasn’t cold everywhere.
Bemused:
was for the *northern hemisphere* only
Because, of course, everything that goes against global warming is merely a local phenomenon.
But apparently anything showing warming can used to extrapolate globally. Bristlecones, for example. When refuters put forward the case that such studies are ridiculously local, which is rather obviously true, we are said to be “denying” the facts.
The data under discussion shows cooling during the period in question in the NH and the tropics. I am unaware that the SH was baking hot during the period, although I recall my childhood was a relatively warm period (warmer than today, actually, but we don’t want to go there!).
Stephan (15:22:27) :
“As an avid denier of AGW I proudly announce that yes 2010 seems to be one of the warmest years of satellite records for the first 3 months anyway (similar to 2005)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
and it means absolutely nothIng in climatic terms. If it was the coldest would say same. LOL All assuming their is no satellite drift of course but i trust AMSU 100%”
The correct link: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
(then choose channel 5 (TMT) and check all years)
2010 is not at all similar to 2005, but high above all years from 1999 to 2009. March 2010 is even high above March 1998, which was the warmest until now. Because the advanced microwave sensor unit was installed later in 1998, you can´t see the 1998 graph before August. But the 20-year-record curve is for 1979-1998 and shows the record from 1998, which is far below 2010 for every day of march until now. March 2010 will probably end around 0,7 °C above 1979-98 (version 5.3, lower troposphere, not identical with the channel 5 value, but close to it). By calculation with version 5.2, perhaps the absolute month record from february and april 1998 (+0.76) would be broken.
“Wren (21:03:05) :
You are right. After turning my monitor on its side, I can clearly see the decline.”
And Mann, Jones et al just turned their monitors the other way to clearly show the hockey stick.
This amateurishness is another indication that we dissenters are not a movement with professional funding and guidance.
I forgot to thank the person who posted this link:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong
It includes a very good explanation of “statistical significance” and how it is misinterpreted.
Patrick Davis (21:13:47) :
“Wren (21:03:05) :
You are right. After turning my monitor on its side, I can clearly see the decline.”
And Mann, Jones et al just turned their monitors the other way to clearly show the hockey stick.
====
The “Hockey Stick” blade is solid, and the shank is solid unless you try to extend it too far and get into an area of uncertainty.
Frank Lansner or someone else please clarify…
I am still unclear on the source of the Nat Geographic graph.
Lansner (or Nova?) give the source as Angell&Korshover (1977) and Budyko (1969).
Firstly…
Are these sources given by Matthews in the Nat Geo article?
Now, as far as I can see, only the Budyko article has a graph back to 1881 as per the Nat Geo article – and it looks very similar. Budyko says this is “the secular variation of annual temp in the NH that was calulated from the maps of the temp anomalies for each month from the period of 1881 to 1960 which were compiled at the Main Geophysical Observatory…”
I gather that he is just using this graph as an establish authority. So the second question is:
Do you know what Budyko means when he gives his source as the Main Geophysical Observatory?
And isnt this the source we should be looking for?
Wren (21:03:05) :
So you say there has been no cooling in the last 10 years?
Wren (21:03:05) :
Ohh, I get it, you’re looking at the Mann Hockey Stick.
That explains it.
Wren (20:30:45) :
If I were a fish in the sea, I’d be concerned about the global ocean temp.
But I live on land (hope you do, too.